Transport Committee on Oct. 31st, 2017

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm curious to follow up on the definition of an emergency. I appreciate that you've referenced a regulation that I've not seen before, but what kind of an emergency are you contemplating that would justify the exemption power? What are the circumstances that we might look at?

If I think of a community and an industrial supply, if these communities grow and need more of a supply, and if they don't have the energy they need to succeed or to thrive, that could constitute an emergency. What kinds of circumstances are you thinking of when you're saying an emergency would justify it? I think both Mr. Smith and Ms. Vernon have raised this issue.

[Gavin Smith]

Minister Garneau raised an issue, which is how we have understood the intention of the bill to be to respond to a natural disaster or some other sudden, urgent, unexpected event that might require emergency supplies for communities. From our perspective, that would be the intention of that provision, to respond to those kinds of circumstances.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Ms. Vernon.

[Caitlyn Vernon]

I would agree with that.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Still on the issue of the exemption, you raised the potential for going through the Canada Gazette procedure. My inclination is that nobody reads the Canada Gazette. If you wanted to make this public, there are probably better ways to achieve that, and I recognize there may be some flexibility.

This is for each of the witnesses. Would it be acceptable to you if some mechanism said that if the ministry used the exemption power and provided public reasons as to why the exemption power was used—maybe they put it on the Department of Transport website.... I'm not sure what you think the best mechanism is, but would that kind of a procedure give you the kind of transparency you're looking for?

[Gavin Smith]

Absolutely, and in many regards it may provide more transparency if reasons were required. Simply publishing the order in the Canada Gazette would not require reasons for that order, but what you're suggesting would effectively be a requirement for public reasons for the order, which we would certainly support.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm curious. Do others have thoughts on this issue?

[Caitlyn Vernon]

I don't, beyond that.

[Gavin Smith]

No.

[Modestus Nobels]

Beyond that, I don't.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

When I was looking at the tonnage limit as well, at 12,500, it struck me that although the size of the vessels we're talking about today might have the 3,200 limit, I don't want to assume that the case today will be the case tomorrow. Do you not see that it would be a potential consequence that as communities grow, in particular the possibility of having larger vessels come in, could reduce overall traffic? I'm quite concerned about Mr. Hardie's point, that if you're restricting yourself to smaller vessels you will see increased traffic.

I'm from the Atlantic coast, and we have an incredible amount of tanker traffic there. Perhaps in most circumstances we don't have the same narrow waterways, but should we not be turning our minds to, in the future, reducing traffic to allow a larger tonnage limit, or do you think I'm way off base on this?

[Caitlyn Vernon]

I think one of the big concerns right now, which we need to keep in this conversation, is these articulated barges travelling between Washington state and Alaska that provide no benefit to any Canadian community and that are putting coastal communities at huge risk, as we've seen from the Nathan E. Stewart spill. That was just the tug spilling, not even the barge. Those have a capacity ranging from 6,400 to 8,000 tonnes. That's significantly larger than what's currently being used for coastal communities.

I hear your point about communities growing. However, I would argue or suggest that we live in a climate-constrained world and that the direction does talk to how communities are trying to get off these diesel shipments. More and more communities will be shifting to renewable energy and away from fossil fuel, so I think that's what we can expect to see in the future, not increasing the transport size.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Certainly.

Do I have time for one more question or am I done?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No. I'm sorry, your time is over.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Chong, I have one minute for you.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I have a very brief question.

Thank you to all three witnesses for coming from British Columbia to the nation's capital to give us your testimony.

Caitlyn, I think it was you who made reference to the fact that the bill covers only the north half of Canada's west coast. I'm wondering if you would be in favour of a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic along the entire west coast of Canada.

[Caitlyn Vernon]

You may have missed my presentation, but on the south coast, tankers pose a huge risk to the economy, communities, wildlife, the southern residents, and endangered orca whales that live in the Salish Sea. We can be supporting jobs and doing better for our communities in other ways. Absolutely, I would support a full-coast moratorium.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you.

[Modestus Nobels]

As much as the moratorium is focused on what is known today as PNCIMA, the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area, that's roughly two-thirds of the B.C. coast. British Columbians in general are very supportive of this bill, not just those of us who live on the coast, but those who live inland as well. There is a great deal of support for that, and I'm sure there would be a great deal of support for a further extension of that moratorium

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much to the witnesses. We very much appreciate and value your testimony today.

We will suspend for a few minutes for the witnesses to change places and to set up the video conference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

While our witnesses get prepared, on November 9, we are having the supplementary estimates. I assume, as with the normal process, we will request that department officials as well as the minister come for the supplementary estimates.

Is that all right with everybody?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Great. Thank you very much.

As our witnesses, we have Robert Hage, fellow of Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

Mr. Hage, would you like to start?